Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every day, clinicians assess risk in various settings. Psychiatrists in all forms of practice are asked to use their skills to forecast the risk of violence: Is the patient dangerous? Should the patient be detained against his or her will? When can we safely release the patient into the community? These are just a few of the formidable questions that are asked daily in clinical practice. Given these expectations, how are we to navigate the inherent uncertainties of risk assessment? Providing didactic education and clinical training for residents within the core psychiatric curriculum would seem essential. Continuing professional development is equally important for psychiatrists to remain well informed of developments in the field. This issue’s In Review section highlights many developments, both in Canada and internationally, along with their clinical implications. The first article, by Dr Hy Bloom and colleagues, gives us a historical overview and suggests implications for current psychiatric practice from a Canadian perspective (1). Canadians have contributed significantly to the international literature on risk assessment, and Bloom and colleagues highlight the importance of assessing the risk of violence to others. They describe this as “undoubtedly the most essential and onerous risk decision-making area (civil commitment) for psychiatrists,” and offer psychiatrists contemporary risk assessment principles to guide clinical practice. The second article, by Dr Graham Glancy and Dr Gary Chaimowitz, provides an overview of the clinical use of risk assessment (2). These authors argue that risk assessment should be part of daily clinical psychiatric practice—indeed, not only risk assessment but, more importantly, risk management and risk reduction. Glancy and Chaimowitz advocate for the use of as much information as possible, including clinical (dynamic), historical (static), and collateral information. This in turn allows clinicians to consider the imminence and severity of potential violence, under what circumstances this risk will be increased, and what can be changed to reduce the risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".